STEM

[Anonymous No.22070343]

Why are STEM people so retarded? I'm a software developer and the fucking spergs in my field are driving me insane.

>Fiction? Why would I read something that's not real?

>Philosophy isn't science so there's no reason to study it.

>I plugged my dubious priors into Bayes' theorem, so my position is scientific.

>If it can't be quantified, it's bullshit. I am a fucking retard who is literally incapable of thinking outside of mathematical models

>Why do you read books without equations?

Someone needs to lock these people in a room with Beethoven blaring through the speakers and a copy of Plato's complete works and don't let them out until they've read the whole thing.

[Anonymous No.22070357]

At least half of the most /lit/ people I know hold STEM degrees, and plenty work in tech. I'm sorry you bad-lucked into the menials, anon.

[Anonymous No.22070368]

It’s just modernity.

[Anonymous No.22070373]

Are those quotes taken directly from your conversations with your peers?

[Anonymous No.22071008]

>>22070343
Just you wait. In their late 30s-early 40s they try to understand art but their brains are too crystallized

[Anonymous No.22071039]

>>22070343
FYI, science has been industrialized.

[Anonymous No.22071048]

>>22070343
Autism is actually retardation and not some "muh superpower," despite spergs claiming otherwise.

[Anonymous No.22071051]

It’s not stem people. It’s a certain kind of modern megalopolitan creature who is incapable of using intuition or non-quantative thinking and therefore is just a computer and not a true mathematician or scientist.

[Anonymous No.22071088]

As other people have said, it isn't STEM that's at fault, it's modern bugmen that have swallowed the utilitarian/secular humanism pill

[Anonymous No.22071101]

>>22071088
also btw the Dawkins quotes aren't all that bad in comparison

[Anonymous No.22071173]

>>22071088
these pickle rick STEMlords love existentialism (whoa dude, what if life has no meaning) determinism (whoa dude what if we are just like in a simulation, and we could just calculate what the future will be) and due to their utilitarianism they often fall into a smug misanthropic antinatalism (no dude... we ARE the real virus).
any kind of "new" idea they think they've come up with, rokos basilisk, simulation theory, atheism. is just a way dumber version of ideas that already existed, but they can't even look at those because it's not coated in popsci shit

[Anonymous No.22071192]

>>22070357
OP here. I feel you, bruh. I know lots of cool people in STEM. But the "I AM AUTISTIC MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE" bullshit makes me want to put my foot through my own fucking face somehow.

>>22071051
>>22071088

I think you two get at the truth. It's not STEM that's at fault. I'm in STEM and I think of myself as temperamentally /lit/ before anything else. It's the industrialization/specialization of everything that enables people to be fucktarded autistic niggers who can't understand anything that doesn't fit a cunting graphing calculator. You used to have to be a generalist to survive.

[Anonymous No.22071194]

>>22071101
dawkins is certainly no philosopher of metaphysics but he has actually done real work which blends philosophy and science which I think is actually valuable. The Selfish Gene is actually pretty good.

[Anonymous No.22071223]

>>22070343
I am currently doing a physics phd. I can relate to like one dude in my department. Everyone else is the bugman you describe because they have been conditioned by the modern world into this extreme materialism/utilitarianism combined with the superfluous prestige our society puts on STEM/academics/grades/technical skills/etc. It's something that Ellul mentions in his Technological Society. Technique is necessary for science but it is a merely a tool for scientific advancement. Early 20th century physicists understood this because they had Classical education. Niggas today be calculating cross sections using beyond-Standard-Model quantum field theory but they have zero idea why they do it except for pure, unadulterated attention whoring. These kinds of people are preferred by the system because they don't ask questions and just mindlessly calculate things to reinforce and advance the system. You wouldn't believe how many physics professors don't give two shits about physics (or anything else for that matter) and just like to boast about that new paper they published and how many citations it got. Appalling state of affairs.

[Anonymous No.22071733]

>>22071194
>dawkins is certainly no philosopher of metaphysics but he has actually done real work which blends philosophy and science

That "blending of philosophy and science" is what we used to call "science". And that's still what actual science is. You only see it as blending with philosophy because our age is fucking degenerated.

[Anonymous No.22071900]

I went to what its called, in my country, a "technical school". Its a school with orientation in trades and industry professions, like elctromechanics, electronics, chemistry...

I begin to live when i started to look into philosophy and arts. Thats when i started to feel human. Prior to that, we were just drones being programmed to work in an assembly line.

As chris hedges says something like, they dont want you to study things that make you think, they want you to stay docile.

[Anonymous No.22071902]

>>22070343
Just summarize Plato to them and blow their minds :)

[Anonymous No.22071909]

>>22070357
What is this "ONE CUNT WOLF PACK" of which you speak and how can I meet it?

[Anonymous No.22071966]

>>22070343
My experience has rarely been this extreme. I wonder if you're coming off as denigrating their range of interests as compared to yours, in which case their response of "no u" is natural, perhaps even healthy

[Anonymous No.22071980]

>>22070343
>tpot
I have nothing but contempt for these people

[Anonymous No.22072127]

>>22071966
>My experience has rarely been this extreme.

I'm exaggerating, of course. But no – I'm actually discovering a love for STEM fields I didn't know I had. I absolutely enjoy what I do! But, like anyone else, I like to complain.

[Anonymous No.22072162]

>>22071048

Prodigies in math and music typically have autism close to them in their family tree.

[Anonymous No.22072588]

Sounds like you have a shitty job.
My co-workers are pretty cool, and have non-STEM hobbies and interests.
One restores classic cars.
One is a gifted green thumb; her yard is amazingly lush.
One is an incredibly gifted rock guitarist, but it's damn near impossible to make a living in the field.
One is a rock drummer.
One has a double-black-belt in kung fu; she's half my size, but I wouldn't cross her.
One is a freaking deacon at his church.
And me? I write fiction.
Of course, we're all in an R&D department; we're not just cranking out web pages or mobile-phone apps or whatever.

[Anonymous No.22072620]

>>22072588
OP here. I like this post.

[Anonymous No.22072634]

>>22072620
Thank you. I like to share.
Of course, I've had jobs where my co-workers are incredibly boring.
The video-game industry was the worst.

[Anonymous No.22072892]

>>22071088
Dawkin's quotes are the most intelligent in the image.

[Anonymous No.22072937]

>>22071173
Correct

[Anonymous No.22073023]

>>22072892
You're genuinely ngmi if you actually believe that btw. Looking at just the right side, Bill Nye's quote is by far the least offensive one. I think any normal personal would find that statement understandable, if not necessarily ironclad.

[Anonymous No.22073046]

>>22073023
Only because normal people are stupid and don't recognize "reality not being real" as a strawman.

[Anonymous No.22073057]

>>22073023
Bill Nye's quote is actually the worst in context because he's answering a question about what he thinks about philosophy. He's equating all of philosophy with extreme Cartesian solipsism.

[Anonymous No.22073089]

>>22071088
It's pretty funny how /lit/ loves circlejerking about muh scientism and preaching the proverbial well-roundedness, but then, whenever there's a discussion that requires at least a modicum of scientific or technical expertise, inevitably hordes of angry humanities pseuds come out of the woodwork and shit it up with barely coherent quasi-philsci sophistry, accusing everyone capable of multiplying double digits mentally of materialism-nihilism-scientism-fedoratism-redditism-ism. Putting PDEs in captcha is unironically the final solution for both /sci/ and /lit/.

[Anonymous No.22073139]

>>22071900

You're stupid for admiring Chris Hedges, as he is both a leftist of sorts and (so he says) some sort of christian, and thus doubly mistaken in his fundamental worldview. Also he's a penis-headed fellow who has never managed to smile in a photograph. Even if one laments the state of the world, one should be able to manage a smile once in a while. He doesn't, his physiognomy and those stupid glasses he wears preclude it.

[Anonymous No.22073199]

>>22072588
You could make a buck writing children's books, you seem very sheltered.

[Anonymous No.22073226]

>>22072588
>her yard is amazingly lush
I'm just so horny bros...

[Anonymous No.22073251]

>>22070343
Not just STEMcels to be fair, all kinds of weird NPCs like that out there. But also I think >>22070357 is correct, your sample sucks. Im getting a PhD in statistics and my colleagues and I habe started a book club where we meet every month to talk about literature

[Anonymous No.22073254]

>>22070343
>>Fiction? Why would I read something that's not real?
Worse than all these other things IMO is that they want to read AI-generated stories, and don't see how it's any different to something written by a person.

[Anonymous No.22073329]

>>22073023
>You're genuinely ngmi if you actually believe that btw
Why should I care what you think?

The quotes made by Dawkin's are affirmed in the writings of Thomas Reid, and the existence of common sensist thinkers like Thomas Reid and C.S. Peirce seem to be the only small hole in the first quote.
I'd bet money that you are still on baby philosophy though and so think everything should be doubted and other epistemological retardations, and hence find Dawkin's quotes offensive.

[Anonymous No.22073429]

>>22073139

>Trying this hard
>Failing so bad

Chadges keeps winning. Cope and seethe you molusk

[Anonymous No.22074455]

>>22071223
truly the industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

[Anonymous No.22074475]

>>22070343
what is tpot?

[Anonymous No.22074496]

>>22070357
Wow - 1 of the 2 people who can actually stand to be around you, read. Congratulations you really proved OP wrong.

[Anonymous No.22074885]

>>22073226
Sorry anon, but she trims her bush(es).

[Anonymous No.22074941]

>>22072588
Yeah, you write like you’re in STEM

[Anonymous No.22074945]

Economics, Finance, Accounting, and Business were worse. At least STEM nerds and humanities students are interested in something. Business people are usually just shallow or hopelessly lost.

[Anonymous No.22074949]

>>22070343
>Beethoven
Isn't classical music just mathematic patterns? They'd probably love this.

[Anonymous No.22074961]

>>22073329
> I'd bet money that you are still on baby philosophy though and so think everything should be doubted and other epistemological retardations, and hence find Dawkin's quotes offensive.
This questioning of all that is perceived as common sense is where useful and revolutionary insights often stem from. How would it be, if Aristotle didn't question human reasoning, yielding to common sense that men simply "think", thus leading him to not build the foundations for Classical Logic? How would it be, if Newton didn't question gravity, and let common sense rule that all things simply "fall" to the ground?
> Dawkins: you could almost define a philosopher as someone who won't take common sense for an answer
Man has been thinking and reasoning throughout his long history, and man has been experiencing gravity long before he reached the stage of being a Homo Sapiens, yet the questioning of these two seemingly-sommon-sense concepts have yielded some of the greatest insights in human history.
So, should we question everything, then? Let's first take the antithesis of that inquiry: Should we question only some things? If so, what are those "things"? What set of standards should we apply to our questions, in order to determine which questions are deemed "good" or "bad"? Is it "good" to question only matter, and never the mind? The physical, and never the metaphysical? To do this is to assume that there could never be any useful or gainful insights in studying the mind and the metaphysical. Would that lead to progress of knowledge? Would we know more by... questioning less?
Now, a counterargument might be raised:
> "Then a freedom in questioning everything would lead to a lot of bad questions."
The importance in having the freedom to freely question anything lies not in the average quality of questions it produces, but in the rare, exceptionally high quality insights it has the potential to produce. This potential can never be present in an environment where arbitrary rules are set as to which can be questioned and which cannot. In the wide view of knowledge, these arbitrary rules would only create pockets of ignorance, preventing mankind to understand all and everything that he could've understood.
> Dawkins: by all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out
I say, let these brains drop out; let man be very open-minded that his brain not only drops out, but smashes straight into the ground, and be broken into tiny little bits and pieces, for who knows? Maybe in the act of observing the brain drop out, we could learn something new, and maybe by letting the brain break into pieces on the ground and exposing what's inside, we could finally see and understand its mysterious inner workings and composition.

[Anonymous No.22074963]

>>22070343
in stem, most every other stem major I've met doesn't read. Not even sure if they consider reading in the first place.